The voters sent the same president and the same congress back to Washington last month and they’re all behaving exactly the same as usual. So don’t get your hopes up about 2014 because apparently everyone is perfectly happy with things the way they are now.

Yeah, those damn Dems in the Senate haven’t passed a budget in over 3 years. All they do is kick the can down the road.
* We have a $16 trillion debt
* We add about $1.2 trillion to that debt every year (thanks to Obama)
* And Obama suggests increasing taxes on the “rich” by $80 billion to solve the problem.

What about the other $1.12 trillion in annual deficts? How does Obama and the Dems in the Senate (neither of which can put forth any kind of a budget) plan to settle that? Or is it that left doesn’t care about debts and deficts?

Boehner put forth a proposition which was put on the table by a Democrat last year. That same democrat said that the middle ground has “changed” and we must find a new one.

Bums? I think not. The democrats are already campaigning again.

The democrats want the top marginal rate higher than the top corporate rate (which they want at 28% and to close loopholes)

The point behind keeping a lower marginal rate and closing loopholes is so that you close the loopholes that someone who is wealthy uses to get out of paying taxes, and you leave the ones which allow for small businesses to keep lower tax rates. The republicans did a great job with this debt deal. They affectively did raise tax rates on the rich.

On the other hand, the democrat proposal allows for plenty of loopholes with a higher rate, taxes smaller businesses who do file under the marginal rate, and oh yeah makes the true millionaires and billionaires get a lower tax rate than small businesses who fall under the marginal rate. Just who is for taxing “fair”?

Boehner and republicans are against this tax increase for common sense reasons. We all know our corporate tax rates are too high, and we shouldn’t lower the rate of corporations below that of marginal rates. That’s simply not fair.

More importantly: We know that lower corporate tax rates have benefits. A restructure of the Corporate tax rate alone would bring back $1 trillion in revenues. Even taxed at 15% on the corporate tax rate it would bring in $150 billion in revenues.

For the marginal rates, the small business capital being left in the hands of small businesses is infinitly more impactful than tax rate cuts for corporations for the sake of the ability to build business. It’s different into the reason why, and that’s why we need a restructure much like that which Romney offered.

We need a lower corporate rate to encourage our corporations to come home. We already had a deal on the table for $1 trillion.

We need a lower marginal rate to leave more money in the hands of small businesses.

We need to have a higher corporate tax rate than a marginal one, to be fair. Why would we ever tax an individual more than a corporation?

The debt deal is a democrat problem, not a republican. The path we are going on this matter is wrong, and the democrats need to stop the class warfare. We can cut taxes and increase jobs as well as revenues, if we do it as part of “deals” rather than simply doing a couple points of difference.

Well Libby, Boehner and current republicans support that position, democrats currently are impeding it in the fiscal cliff talks.

Romney also supported that position. He was going to put the top rate for marginal at 28%, while cutting loopholes effectively making sure that businesses who paid marginal rates would pay 28%. It was aimed as a business tax cut. Not a wealthy tax cut.

Romney also supported the corporate tax rate deal. Those two areas alone would have made our system more fair, bring in more revenues, and are the right thing to do.

You keep saying throw out the bums, but you voted them back in, and here we are at an impass again. The republicans aren’t the block to the tax reform you want. The democrats are.

I did not vote them back in. I voted incumbents out, except for Obama. Romney talked a good game about his plan, but he didn’t have any specifics. He never told us which loopholes or how his so-called budget was going to work. No-one took him seriously because of that.

December 5, 2012 at 3:56 pm

Bobsays:

Like or Dislike:

7

8

You’re telling me with a straight face that you didn’t vote for Mark Udall or Michael Bennet?

Those were incumbent democrats.

Which incumbent democrats did you vote out? More to the point, Obama is the biggest issue of incumbency. When you have someone doing that you make them learn you vote them out, whether the competition is lousy or not. It makes them realize that they can’t get away with anything.

I’m no longer a Colorado resident, so didn’t vote for either man. I voted for Obama because I was voting against Romney. I do not trust him and he made my skin crawl.

December 5, 2012 at 4:04 pm

Bobsays:

Like or Dislike:

11

2

Libby:

He makes your skin crawl because of the democrats currently in office as well as the media.

If you realized that, your skin would start truly crawling.

Obama’s approval rating is shooting up during this fiscal cliff deal. Even though you and I know better, he’s using it to boost his approval rating and power accordingly.

What about that doesn’t make your skin crawl? A guy willing to raise the top rates just to be popular, despite the fact that it is by no means doing what he says it does?

They are insighting this type of political grandeur and political process all the time. And more scary: They are powerful enough to make it popular and win over votes.

Why is Obama having people go on the podium with him stating they need a tax cut? Republicans already agree with them getting a tax cut. The person who is holding anyone hostage is Obama, just to garner support in the 2014 elections for democrats.

Bob, do you think Obama is intentionally trying to ruin the U.S. economy with his policy or do you just think he is inept?

December 5, 2012 at 4:24 pm

Bobsays:

Like or Dislike:

7

0

Libby:

I think Obama doesn’t think our situation be fixed the way it needs to be without the middle class turning on democrats, or the whole system. If he came out and said what needed to be done he would effectively be stating that he agreed with Bush’s tax rates, or that is how Americans would see it anyway. It’s too dangerous. How would you as a democrat say we need to make a deal with corporations lowering their rate? The people would see that as Cronyism, and technically, it is. It just so happens that in this case we would have some progress come from that deal. I think he’s basically trapped.

I do not think he is trying to ruin America. I am not extreme enough to think any president has the intentions of destroying America.

December 6, 2012 at 1:35 pm

FFAsays:

Like or Dislike:

1

2

Libby – Yes. I think he is deliberatly trying to run the country into China. To what end, I dont know, but he aint doin nothing to stop it from happening.

December 6, 2012 at 2:06 pm

Libbysays:

Like or Dislike:

1

2

But Americans DO believe in the Bush cuts, for themselves! Just not a cut for the wealthiest Americans.

I don’t like to think of some backroom deal with corporate America, but we need to help small business have a way to file their taxes other than individually. Why are we not smart enough to come up with something like that?

December 7, 2012 at 2:09 pm

Bobsays:

Like or Dislike:

1

0

Libby:

You just asked the same question I did the other day regarding small business tax rates, and it’s a perfectly good question.

You know what’s interesting, in Canada they do have such a method for making sure small businesses have lower taxes and don’t use marginal rates.

It makes sense.

December 7, 2012 at 2:11 pm

Libbysays:

Like or Dislike:

0

1

Is there a fear that if we do that, businesses will break into smaller subsidiaries to avoid paying the corporate tax?

December 7, 2012 at 4:08 pm

Bobsays:

Like or Dislike:

0

0

Libby:

It’s probably somewhere in how to do the definition. Doing it as a number of employees would seem to make sense.

December 5, 2012 at 1:24 am

Water Bugsays:

Hot debate. What do you think?

15

10

The losers who voted for Obama are largely low income folks many of whom don’t pay federal income tax. They have nothing to lose by voting mongo tax increases on the winners who reject Obamanomics. The losers will keep same clods in office next election.

With an attitude like that, I think it is you that is the loser. Almost the entire entertainment community voted for Obama and believe me, they are not low income folks that don’t pay taxes. I voted for Obama as well as my family, which is comprised of physicians, medical professionals, insurance professionals, and older folks. Oh! That’s right. The older folks are part of the blood-sucking 47% that “live off” the system by taking their medicare and social security that they paid into their entire lives.

You need an attitude adjustment to avoid sounding like an arrogant, bigoted, ignorant pinhead.

Yeah…the entire entertainment community, which includes socialists like Roseanne, Cher, Streisand, Eva Longoria, Ed Asner, et al. These are some of the richest people in our country, yet they all hate rich people. Yeah–no double standard there. And, Libby, my family is also comprised of surgeons, other medical, banking, insurance professionals, military personnel, and elderly folks, and not one of us voted for this loser in the WH because we all knew better! Now, go put the Kool Aid down, clear your brain out, and see things for how they are now and for how much worse they are going to get!

Referncing the entire entertainment industry is not the best move. You’ve got Beyonce and Jay Z on your side in campaign emails and it’s not something to be proud of.

Moreover, your team does have the majority of people who are takers.

It doesn’t matter if you didn’t vote for that reason, and others didn’t. Many others did from a statstical stand point. Unless you’re going to talk true demographics when you call someone a bigoted ignorant pinhead, please just don’t.

Numbers speak for themselves. Water Bug’s comment was accurate, and it is how democrats target.

But my statement still stands, he’s adding an emotional aspect to it, but his main point is that they are as I call it “takers”.

December 5, 2012 at 3:52 pm

Libbysays:

Like or Dislike:

2

8

I think we have a growing number of Republicans on “the take” these days. Unless only Democrats got laid off or lost their job.

December 5, 2012 at 3:53 pm

Libbysays:

Like or Dislike:

2

8

I think we have growing numbers of Republicans on the “take.” Unless it was only Democrats that got laid off or lost their job.

December 5, 2012 at 4:08 pm

Bobsays:

Like or Dislike:

10

1

Libby:

Taking for 99 weeks rather than 26 is a huge exposure. That’s almost 2 years. I know I’m referncing the original unemployment extension, but you get my point.

I’ve had over 10 hires come in who rejected a job offer of $12 an hour plus comission. You think they are getting better elsewhere or don’t want to work?

Currently democrats are appealing to those who are takers. If the recession is really over our food stamp and welfare programs should not be over double what they were in 2008. Unless there are currently more takers.

And those takers are definitely in the plurality leaning democrat.

I’m not talking about taking away what people need. You are correct, some people do need it right now.

December 5, 2012 at 4:29 pm

Libbysays:

Like or Dislike:

1

10

Well, Bob, when I lost my job I turned down $12 an hour jobs because that would have brought home less money than I received on unemployment. Why would I do that? Just doesn’t make sense for me or my family to put us in a worse financial position. Once I found something that paid more than unemployment, I jumped at it even thought it was 2/3 of what I had been making before. If qualified people are walking into you office, why are you offering them only $12 and hour?

December 5, 2012 at 4:44 pm

Bobsays:

Like or Dislike:

9

1

Libby:

$12 an hour plus comission? Libby, that’s not low pay.

Further to the point why do you assume they were qualified for more pay or much less that we have a position that would pay more than that for someone who could lose our company money if they sell nothing? The vast majority of people staying on unemployment are not what you just said.

These people were 20-30 years old, and were surviving off of unemployment so they didnt’t have to work. They were not engineers. They were not highly trained accountants. They did not have college degrees.

December 5, 2012 at 4:47 pm

Bobsays:

Like or Dislike:

9

0

Libby:

To give examples, my pay is $12 an hour plus comission. Guess how much I make? The trainees I hired years ago are $12 plus comission. Take a guess there as well.

We told people they would have a solid income to fall back on plus renewals adding up each year. This job is the best job you could fall into at my place of business.

More to the point, we listed the job as $12 plus comission. Why did they apply and come in for the interview? Come on Libby, it was for unemployment benefits and you know it.

December 6, 2012 at 8:20 am

Libbysays:

Like or Dislike:

1

1

OK, I’ll take your word for it. I assumed they were seasoned insurance professionals.

December 6, 2012 at 1:39 pm

FFAsays:

Like or Dislike:

0

0

I pay my one remaining producer $10 per hour + Commish and he walks home making about $40.00 per hour. At then end of the day, he covers every penny of his employee expense.

December 6, 2012 at 2:07 pm

Libbysays:

Like or Dislike:

0

0

That’s fine. I wasn’t aware it was a commission based position. I thought he was looking for experienced support people.

December 5, 2012 at 10:12 am

draetishsays:

Like or Dislike:

11

2

Libby can you please tell me “why” in a nutshell ya’ll voted for Obama? What is so special about him other than talking a good talk but not doing anything but taking vacations. He had the passed four years to “do” something but we are in worse shape now than ever. Please don’t pull the “blame Bush card”.

For one thing, we are not in worse shape now than ever. Are things bad? Yes. If not for Obama, they could have been alot worse. He averted a deep depression, which in my mind is a great thing. He couldn’t turn things completely around in four years. No-one could. But we are moving in the right direction.

Second of all, what other choice did I have? Mitt Romney??? No f-ing way I would vote for that corporate prick. He’d have us all living back in the 1950’s with women at home, pregnant, and the men out “saving the world.” No thank you.

If you Republicans can get your shit together enough to find a viable candidate, I will consider them. Until then, I’m voting Democratic.

Obama did not avert a depression. He inflated living costs in order to make a temporary fix. In Europe the temporary fix caused a double dip recession when the spending ended. Now their spending not only just temporarily put off the pain, they are in the pain longer thus causing more debt.

Stastically countries do better when they cut taxes and cut spending during a recession. Obama cut taxes and increased spending. I am all for the temporary tax cuts he did. I am not for the spending.

Canada did this and it resulted in surpluses, as well as their dollar at times recently surpassing ours. While Clinton increased rates Canada decreased them, especially the corporate rates.

While Clinton had 2 surplus years Canada had nearly a decade, and a much larger as a percentage of GDP.

Contrary to your statement, the deeper the recession the quicker the bounce back up. It’s historical. Obama didn’t keep this recession from being worse. He extended it.

We are still down about 4 million jobs since the bottom of the recession. Over 4 years the bounce back up should have brought in much more than a comparable amount to Bush’s years. I have said this before: After a recession the bounce back up should be higher than the time period after a boom, and when you are at full unemployment rates. During Bush’s presidency we were at full employment, of course job creation was low. During Obama’s we were at 10% at points. It’s logics and common sense that Obama should have doubled Bush’s numbers but he didn’t.

I voted for Obama for the same reasons as Libby plus Romney wanted me to.
1. I am part of the 47% that he does think would ever vote for him. I have not paid Federal Income taxes since Obama has been in office because I have 3 children, pay my mortgage, paying back student loans for my Master’s degree, pay my state property taxes, and make charitable contributions just to name a few deductions. I have NEVER accepted any federal benefits (Medicaid, Food Sttamps, etc). I do take personal responsibility for my life by working my way through college and paying back all of my loans.

2. I AM better off than I was 4 years ago. Not because of gifts from Obama (see point 1), but because I worked hard and became more educated.

Can you please tell me “why” in a nutshell you voted for Obama? Please don’t pull the “he is not Obama” card.

In a nutshell, I’ll keep my guns, money and freedom and you can keep the change. I don’t think Obama is qualified to be President and it really bugs me that he had his birth and college records sealed. What is he hiding? I don’t support Obamacare and think he is a fake. I don’t think he has a clue as to what he is doing and is someone’s puppet. The man doesn’t have any type of resume and can’t speak without a teleprompter and when he is called on it, blames it on the altitude. I am not a fan of Romney at all, but it was better than not voting at all.

His birth records are not sealed. He released his birth certificate. I can’t believe you Republicans can’t get over the fact that he IS a U.S. citizen.

And WHY should he release his college records? Has any other president? What business is it of yours? It’s not good enough he went to Harvard? Now you want to pick apart his grades and the fact that he may have gotten in due to Affirmative Action? Since when is that a crime?

And riddle me this draetish, why wouldn’t Romney release his tax records? Maybe to show he has been a tax evader from way back and now wants to be President of the United States?

Those reasons for not voting for Obama are so lame. If you can’t come up with anything better than that, your party deserves to be in the losing seat.

Tax records on any accords are silly. I don’t care about Obama’s, I don’t care about Romney’s.

Romney paid what he owed. His rate was likely much lower than many people’s rates. And we don’t need to be focusing on that. There are tangible affects which are bad to higher capital gains tax rates, and they are a double taxation. The public corporation receives the money, they have earnings from the public dollars, and those dollars for the corporation itself are taxed through corporate taxes before being released through profits to the capital gains. Then those profits are taxed again as gains to investors. The investors paid their taxes through the corporate taxes. This makes any investments cost twice as much when capital is obtained through stocks. We need business to cost equal whether you are a public trading company or a private. Not for it to increase two fold as soon as you have investors.

If Romney showed his taxes people would have attacked the investor class, as Obama already is doing with captial gains, ignoring why they are the rate they are.

Actually, Bob, I DID care about Romney’s tax records prior to the election. He was running on a certain platform, yet it was questionable that he’s been paying his fair share to taxes over the years. Normally, it would not be any of my business. But when you are running for POTUS on a certain platform that’s a different story.

December 5, 2012 at 4:39 pm

Bobsays:

Well-loved. Like or Dislike:

11

1

Libby:

It isn’t questionable. The IRS would have him in cuffs if he broke tax laws.

What you mean to say is that the majority of his income is in lower taxed fields. That is perfectly fair when those lower taxes benefit everyone in that field as well as the economy.

When running for the POTUS we should not be shooting out talking points. That would have ended with Class Warfare, as it did, with people saying “we need to get Romney!” and not focusing on what Tax platform is best for America.

Showing taxes as part of a public ordeal should not happen. They should have their taxes gone over privately to see if they broke any laws, and then it should end there. We don’t need to insight class warfare due to someone’s taxes since they paid less. That’s pure bull.

Bob,
My concern regarding Romney not releasing his tax returns are that he was breaking a tradition that his own father starteed and I wanted to know exactly how his tax proposal would impact his personal situation especially regarding loophole and deductions.

December 5, 2012 at 5:11 pm

Davesays:

Well-loved. Like or Dislike:

10

0

Interesting comments about politicians tax records. When it comes down to it I really don’t care how much money a person makes or how much taxes he/she pays on it as long as how they made money was legal (Joe Kennedy became rich bootlegging liquor) and whether they cheated on their taxes (Charlie Rangel) which the IRS tracks pretty well. But how a politician thinks, what molded his view of life, the world, the economy. That’s important to me. Very important to me. Speaking from personal experience, the most informative part of my life, the part of my life which made me think about those things more than any other time, was when I was in college. I had to release my college transcripts for two of my jobs since I got out of college. But for one of the most important jobs on the planet, Obama felt absolutely compelled to totally hide his transcripts in both elections (something the compliant liberal media gave him a walk on). Why I wonder? What did he have to hide? What was so much more relevant than Mitt Romney’s tax records that Obama felt compelled to hide from the world? What could it be?

You said Obama hid his transcripts from the world. He is not hiding them any more than Romney was hiding his tax records. He is not required to show his transcripts and it’s none of our business. What do you think you could possibly find in them that would be so damning anyway? That he made a C- in social studies? He was president of the Harvard Law Review for crying out loud. The man is not stupid, nor was he a bad student.

December 6, 2012 at 9:58 am

Davesays:

Like or Dislike:

5

1

Libby, let me explain this better. Again it is much more important to me how a politician thinks than how much money he earned or how much taxes he paid on it. At no other time other than in college were my opinions formed on economic policy and world events. I’m sure the same is true with Obama. I see him struggle with trying to explain basic economic theory and see his policies and it becomes clear to me that he is an economic illiterate. Did he take any economic classes? If so was his professor a Socialist? Does he understand basic economic theory?

You say: “He is not hiding them any more than Romney was hiding his tax records. He is not required to show his transcripts and it’s none of our business.” So the fact that Romney hid his tax records make it OK for Obama to hide his transcripts? Funny how the lamestream media was all over Romney and gave Obama a walk on the transcripts. And by the way, Romney ultimately did release a couple of years of tax returns, Obama did not release any transcripts. Why is Romney’s tax returns part of our business and Obama’s transcripts not? Liberal double standard? I don’t care about his grades, I want to know how he thinks, I want to know what classes he took. Why is he hiding them so feverishly? Why?

December 6, 2012 at 10:17 am

Libbysays:

Like or Dislike:

2

3

Dave says: “I want to know how he thinks, I want to know what classes he took. Why is he hiding them so feverishly? Why?”

He is not hiding them, feversishly or otherwise. Are you telling me you did not vote for any other President without seeing the college transcipts? No other President has released their transcripts, so why should he?

If you want to know how he thinks, just listen to him. Google him. Research him. There is plenty of material out there that will give you an idea of what kind of man he is. When he graducated from Harvard, after being president of the Law Review, it was opined that he would clerk for a Supreme Court justice or make a ton of money in a big firm. He did neither. He accepted a job as a Community Organizer in Chicago. He has been very active in that area. He was also known in Harvard as one that did not express extreme views, but had friends on both the conservative and liberal sides of the Review.

Just do some homework and you’ll see how he thinks. You are not entitled to look at his transcripts, or any other President’s transcripts.

December 6, 2012 at 11:51 am

Davesays:

Like or Dislike:

3

2

Typical liberal response Libby. Get cornered, change the topic. Why, why, why won’t he release his transcripts? Two of my jobs required college transcripts. I released them for much less of an important job than Obama’s Why won’t he? Please explain. As far as researching him, no need. I’ve seen plenty of YouTube videos where he spews his socialistic and government control agenda. I just want to know where he learned it. Why must he hide this? Will you answer that question or not? Why won’t he release? Why? I did, two times. I had nothing to hide. What is he hiding for the most important job in the world? Why can’t he say what classes he attended? And why does the liberal media let him walk on that? Why did they not blow that up the way they blew up Romney’s tax records WHICH HE EVENTUALLY RELEASED? Why the double standard? Try not to go off on other topics. I dare you to answer just one of the many ON TOPIC questions I asked. Just one.

December 6, 2012 at 12:04 pm

Libbysays:

Like or Dislike:

2

3

I have answered, Dave, but here I go again.

1. No other U.S. President has released his college transcripts, including Dubya (which I would have loved to have seen.) Why should he cowtow to your demands? He is the POTUS.

2. He is not hiding them. His transcripts, along with yours, are confidential information. So are driving records, medical records, and voting records. They are not open to the public.

3. He has alot better things to do with his time than hunt down his college transcripts.

4. HE DOESN’T HAVE TO.

Romney only released 2 years of tax records, which is all that is required by law. He did not do anything he did not have to do.

Why do you hold Obama to a different standard than Bush and Romney?

December 6, 2012 at 12:27 pm

Bobsays:

Like or Dislike:

2

0

Dave,

I actually feel Libby is right on this one.

Obama a fairly prodominant Lawyer. He can’t be that without some sort of skill. People were aware of what they elected with Obama in regards to his history. They tend to only not be aware in his true effect.

We should not care about his college transcripts.

December 6, 2012 at 6:57 pm

Davesays:

Like or Dislike:

3

0

Let me ask again, why did the lamestreet media not press college transcripts as they pressed tax returns for Romney?

Tax returns are just as confidential as transcripts, Romney released tax returns, Obama released no transcripts. Why? What is he hiding? What is he so embarrassed about? Why does he get a walk? Where’s the equivalency? BTW you say: “Romney only released 2 years of tax records, which is all that is required by law.” Required by law? What law? There’s no such law.

Also: “He has alot better things to do with his time than hunt down his college transcripts.” Now that’s really a bunch of crap. Do you even know what’s involved in releasing your college transcripts? Do you? If not let me explain. You sign a form allowing the university to release the transcripts to whom you allow. Really weak excuse. He is refusing to release transcripts not because he is lazy. He is doing so to hide something. The fact that you don’t get that says a lot about your line of thinking.

December 7, 2012 at 8:48 am

Kev1nsays:

Like or Dislike:

1

0

I frankly don’t care about the college transcripts or tax returns of our elected officials – assuming there is nothing illegal going on. I do wonder if the reason Obama didn’t release his college transcripts is because he just doesn’t want to waste his time trying to keep providing documentation that no one else has to provide. Maybe he’s thinking, “first birth certificate, then college transcripts, what’s going to be next? I’m never going to be able to satisfy these guys!”

December 7, 2012 at 9:03 am

Libbysays:

Like or Dislike:

0

1

Dave – When you are running for POTUS, you are required to provide certain documentation. One of the criteria is 2 years tax returns. That is all Romney supplied.

The reason he did not supply more is because we would see that in past years, he has (legally) lowered his net tax rate with deductions, write-offs, and loopholes. Thus confirming the fact that most Americans that pay taxes pay a higher net rate than he does even though he is a gazillionaire.

Once that is established, he would have a very difficult time convincing middle America that he would vote for policies that benefit them and not him and his rich cronies.

Get it now? Good.

Now, stop with the transcripts. There is no requirement that he release them. You got your birth certificate, he was re-elected, sit down and shut up for the next 4 years.

December 7, 2012 at 3:10 pm

Davesays:

Like or Dislike:

1

0

Very simply Obama promised to be the most transparent administration ever. That was a blatant lie coming from a Chicago political hack which I am very familiar with coming from Chicago.
* Open debates on Obamacare to transmitted on C-SPAN
* The whole set of lies and cover up on Benghazi
* Gun running in Mexico
* And of course, hide the college transcripts because there is something he does not what us to know.

Libby, you’re a blind follower of the anointed one and show it in every post. Again I ask, why is he hiding the college transcripts? I released mine twice for an insurance job of much less importance than his job. What is he hiding? What is he so embarrassed about? What happened to the most transparent administration ever? Just plain old Chicago dirty politics which unfortunately I am immersed in every day living in this God forsaken city which Obama wants to implement across the nation.

December 7, 2012 at 3:15 pm

Libbysays:

Like or Dislike:

0

0

I’m done trying to explain it to you. You are obviously too dumb to read English.

December 5, 2012 at 2:42 pm

Ronsays:

Like or Dislike:

3

12

Thank you for making my point. Nobody likes Romney and nobody can come up with a reason to vote for him other than “He is not Obama”. I challenged you to tell why you vote FOR Romney, not against Obama and you couldn’t do it.
If you like your guns, money and freedom you should have voted for Obama.
Guns: Guess which of the 2 candidates actually signed legislation limiting gun rights (Romney:assault weapons ban in MA) and who signed legislation expanding gun rights (Obama:legalizes concealed weapons in National Parks)?
Money: Guess which candidate has been President during the lowest tax rates in over 40 years?
Freedom: Nothing has significantly changed since President Bush signed the Patriot Act which was the biggest limitation of privacy and freedom in our lifetime so there is nothing I can say indicating Obama has expanded any freedoms.
I would have likely voted for Huntsman if he was nominated (barring something crazy that came out during the general election), but he would not fall into the far right-wing thought process. He actually had a reasonable, balanced approch that would have across the aisle appeal.
He would have won by at least 10 points over Obama, but the Republicans did not have the foresight to actually nominate someone who would had broad appeal.
Do you really think that with all of the resources available to the Clinton campaign and Republican Party that could not have found some kind of proof that Obama is not qaualified to be President based on citizenship by now? I wouyld prefer he released the college records, but it is not enough to keep me from voting for him.
Why didn’t Romney release at least 10 years of tax returns. We all know he is rich, and most don’t care, but I would like to know how his tax proposals may impact his personal wealth. Obama has been clear that he knows he pushing for policices that negatively affect his.
Romney saied he would not be qualified to be President if he paid even $1 more in taxes than he is legally required and then amends his tax return to limit his charitable deductions to make sure his effective tax rate is over 13% to keep a campaign promise.

The tax rates would be a big one. $1 trillion in GDP revenues restored is my reason to vote Romney. That was a great deal that Obama rejected. Keystone oil is a deal I wanted to go through on a timely manner, not over 5 years past when it was requested. If it takes the government 5 years to approve something, it shouldn’t be in charge of approving anything. $150 billion in additional government revenues is a reason to vote for Romney as part of that $1 trillion dollar deal.

The CBO rated republican health plan which was weighted to decrease premiums by 9% without requiring you to purchase insurance is another. I don’t like it when the government says I have to buy insurance, the CBO says it will increase it by 9% (18% total when compared to the republican, as the republican decreases 9 from the norm the democrat increases 9 from the norm) and that they will then create a subsidy to offset the additional costs which will increase debt.

That’s another reason to vote for Romney.

His social security plan was superb and a real solution to our issues. Do you want me to explain this one for you as well? It was really rather intiuitive. It was the only plan which doesn’t rely on maintaining a system through only taxing and spending. It changed the game rather than maintained it. We’ve done the same thing with social security for some time now. I like going outside of the status quo.

I’m sure you wouldn’t agree on medicare, but that was a good plan as well.

I voted for Romney because he was going to kick OBama Care. We are already seeing the impact of that on jobs (Cedar Falls IA). 50 people going to be under employed not even 60 days after the election.

I voted for Romney because he did not cut his political teeth in the most corrupt county in the most corrupt state under one of the worst goveners that is not in prison for corruption.

In IL, we had a State Senator arrested at OHare yesterday for trying to carry a loaded fire arm onto a plane. We have Crook County Commissioner under indictment for Tax Evasion. We have Jesse JR, Mel Reynolds, Grey Lord, Silver Scoop just to name a few.

FFA – just because Cedar Falls uses that as an excuse does not make it so. I just saw on another post where healthcare will be capped at $2,500 premium. Don’t know if that’s true or not, but if so that would sure help you and yours, wouldn’t it?

A Month? What Deductible? Give me a plan design before I answer that question. I am currently paying (for me and the wife only) close to $1200. It just went up because I aged into a new premium bracket. So, $2500 @ month at 100% coverage – GREAT. $2500 @ month with a $10K ded goes 2x+ what I am currently paying. If my clients hours get cut or they have to close their doors and cant pay their ins bill, well it becomes irrelavant because I wont be able to pay what my premiums were just 12 months ago.
According to the artilce, its not an excuse, it is a necessary evil brought on by Obama Care. Can you shop afford to take on an additional $855K in expenses? That is a pretty big nut to crack.

December 7, 2012 at 8:36 am

Libbysays:

Like or Dislike:

0

1

$2,500 a year.

December 7, 2012 at 12:32 pm

FFAsays:

Like or Dislike:

1

0

A Year??? My G Pa always taught me if it sounds too good to be true, its not true.

December 7, 2012 at 1:03 pm

Libbysays:

Like or Dislike:

0

1

That’s more than mine. Mine is $85 a month. But that’s why I asked if anyone knew if it was true or not. Haven’t had anyone respond, just 3 thumbs down…

December 7, 2012 at 1:11 pm

Libbysays:

Like or Dislike:

0

1

I found it. If you make more than $55,125 for a family of 4, your premium is capped at 9.5% of your income up to a maximum of $8,379. You can find the information at:

Ron said- “I have not paid Federal Income taxes since Obama has been in office because I have 3 children, pay my mortgage, paying back student loans for my Master’s degree, pay my state property taxes, and make charitable contributions just to name a few deductions. I have NEVER accepted any federal benefits (Medicaid, Food Sttamps, etc).

Ron, Good for you. If you like not paying any taxes under the current tax structure you should have voted for Romney. Why? Because the tax structure currently in place is the Bush tax structure which is about to expire at the end of the month. That is part of Obama’s problem. He has extended the Bush tax cuts every year of his presidency even though he said he would eliminate them. It is also a part of his fiscal cliff problem. Better hope he does not keep his promise

The problem I had with Romney vs Obama regarding the tax issue is this, Obama has been honest and transparent with what his approach for debt reduction. Ronmey wanted $5 trillion in additional tax reductions and $2 trillion in additional defense spending and was going to pay for it by closing loopholes and limiting deductions on those maiking more than $250 k. Please explain the math. Neither he nor Ryan could answer that question. They would not even say which loopholes and deductions. There were no specifics in speeches or on Romney’s website.
I felt far more comfortable that Obama would fight for me to maintain my current tax structure.

You just quoted campaign rhetoric, and false rhetoric at that, especially the $2 trillion in additional defense spending.

Obama was not honest. He lied. See my above comment regarding tax code reform on what republicans actually are doing. He’s not going after high income people, and his tax code is poor.

You keep saying all this and that, but here’s the thing: What person makes over $250,000 that doesn’t work for a company that files as a corporation?

In the case of taxes, they are taxed at the corporate level which pays their income, and are taxed on the marginal. In the case of small business they are taxed at just the marginal.

Closing loopholes for the marginal would affect the small amount of people who don’t work for corporations with an income that would be taxed higher, but it would not affect the small business tax rate. It made perfect sense mathmatically. Lowering the corporate tax rate would bring back $1 trillion in GDP revenues, the deal was offered years ago. Look it up. The revenues from that would be $150 billion for the government. We would actually gain revenues from that lower rate. Corporate tax revenues actually increased under Bush I might add. Not by a small amount either. Bush just didn’t eliminate the loopholes, which he should have.

That’s laughable Ron. “Obama has been honest and transparent with what his approach for debt reduction.” With $16 trillion in debt and annual deficits of around $1.2 trillion Obama’s plan for debt reduction is to increase taxes on the rich by $80 billion a year. What about the other $1,120,000,000,000 in annual deficits? You call that honest and transparent? Really?

Ron – Honest? He is from Illinois – Cook County – the most corrupt county in the most corrupt state. Honest? Look into the Cook County Tax records and see the sham he pulled with convicetd & imprisoned felon Rezco & Levine when he purchased his house.
Il politicians have a different idea about honesty then people that can read Websters Dictionary.
Honest my a$#. Man, did you pluck a nerve in my body – calling any politician from Il honest. Just proves you have blinders on.
Every one of them CROOK CROOK Crook.
This state should be abolished and integrated into surrounding states.
Open your eyes – honest my a#@.

I was referring specifically to his debt reduction plan, period.
If you think any politician, especially on a national level, from any state is honest, then you need to open your eyes.
Why wouldn’t Romney/Ryan provide any specifics of their plans? Why wouldn’t Romney release 10 yeras of his tax returns so we could understand how he would be personally impacted by his tax proposals? Why did he require 10 years of tax returns from the VP candidates he was vetting, but not the American voters whio were vetting him? Do not reply to that last question with Obama’s birth certificate and/or college transcripts. I am making the point that he is not open and honest either.

Honesty is a full time gig. Your either honest or you are not. Con Men pick and choose their moments of honesty.

Romney / Ryan – Dont know. Dont care any more. Its over – history much like Regan, Bush, Billary ect…
Like it or not, OBama Care is here to stay. I have accepted that fact. Truth is that it has created sales opportunities and I look forward to bashing and trashng OBama for a long long time.

December 5, 2012 at 2:07 pm

Sargent Majorsays:

Well-loved. Like or Dislike:

22

3

Hey Ron I will tell you why I voted for Obama:

* Obama was not and is not qualified to be President of the United States. I don’t think that a community organizer with little politcial experience and someone who has never run a business should essentially learn on the job.

* His failed ability to put forth any budget in his first term that would pass either the Senate or the house. He put forth one budget that NO ONE not one even his own party voted for. That is not a budget, that is a joke.

*The failed Trillion dollar stimulus plan where it is estmated that as much as 60% went to gambling, booze etc. It did nothing!

*He not only did not keep his promise to exit Iraq but also escalated the Afghan war and help start a war with Libya.

* He pulled $716 Billion dollars out of Medicare to fund Obozocare. I don’t know about you but that will impact my mother who is in her 80’s and relies on medicare. So his pretended love for Seniors is little founded.

*His relentless spending which is driving the country toward bankruptcy. His administration has spent more money than all of the other presidents in history, combined. We still have 8% unemployment and the economy continues to teeter on another downward recession. It is unsustainable.

* He wants congress to give him an unlimited debt ceiling. That means he wants the credit card for the United States and wants to do with it what he wants when he wants without any oversight- He is an idiot.

* His desire to give amnesty to approximately 12 milion or more Illegal alien deadbeats who are a drain on this economy. If you don’t believe that look at California. Here is a state that collects 175 Billion in taxes (more than any other state), has the highest gas tax in the country per gallon of gas at 39.5 cents per gallan and California burns more fuel than any other state. There state sales tax is 7.25% which, I believe is the highest ( or close to) in the US and the state is on the verge of bankruptcy- Why is that Ron?

* His failure to keep any of his promises. Did he close Quantanomo- No, not even his own state wanted any of those scumbag terrorists. Did he bring them in to US courts- No, no one wanted them in their cities.

* His failed promise of transparency. He told America that he would post bills on the net and give the citizens and congress a minimum amount of time to read the bill before voting. Did he do that- No, they had a democratic congress pass Obozocare in the middle of the night with no to for anyone to read the bill. He has been the least transparent president in history.

I could go on and on but this would read like a novel.

His ultimate desire is to break this country down to a bunch of people all making 10 bucks an hour and wearing blue uniforms so that the deadbeats of society can tell their kids are wonderful they are and how well they do to the rest of society. That is socialism/communism. No Thanks

Once again, no reasons to vote FOR Romney.
We have had only 2 Presidents who have run businesses prior to being President, Herbert Hoover and George W Bush. Hoover’s Presidency ended with the Great Depression and Bush’s ended with the Great Recession. Coincidence? Maybe. But these are facts.
Where in the Constitution does it say that the President is responsibile for presenting a budget?
What is you resource indicating 60% of the stimulus went to gambling and booze?
The war in Iraq did end under his watch and the escalation was recommended by the Joint Chiefs. I am glad the the President listens to the proper experts when it comes to military action.
Ryan’s budget also cuts about the same amount from Medicare. No benefits were reduced. I am glad to hear that your Mother is alive in her 80’s and there si no indication thnat her medical coverage will be impacted.
His spending is not that much worse than prior Presidents. Reagan did the same thing during his term and so did George W Bush. The only President in recent memory that didn’t was Clinton.
We all know how ell it went ehen he had to aske permission to pay our bills last year…downgrade.
Please inform me of any President who has kept all of his promises? If you vote for someone based on all of his/her promises and he/she does keep all of them, that is on you being a little naive.

Perhaps if SargentMajor prefaced each bullet point with “I didn’t vote for Obama because…”. Would that have helped you? Each bullet point to me translates to “Why I voted for Romney.” I hope that clarifies for you.

Bob,
I am not going to blindly defend Obama and the way everything has been handled. I, like most people that voted for him, understand that he does not walk on water and we have never seen him that way. However, when I vote, I make my decision based on who I think will do the best for the country first then me and my family second. In my humble opinion, I truly believe he did the best possible job with what he came in to and what he had to work with. Romney may have been better han Obama, but he never provided any real details about his plan, just ambiguous bullet points. I went to his website many time looking for a detailed plan and never found anything.

Ron–I can tell that the veins in your neck are popping and your eyes are popping out of their sockets. Chill out–we are NEVER going to agree with ANY of your talking points about Obama. The bottom line is, he’s an ass puppet who can’t ‘President’ himself out of a wet paper bag without someone telling him how to do it or by reading it off a teleprompter. The sad thing is, we have no choice but to have to put up with this puppet for another 4 years.

No not really. I dont give talking points, only verifiable facts.
If you can dispute what I say with information from a credible source (Breitbart, Heritage Foundation, Move-On and Huffington are NOT credible), then I would be happy to hear it and do the research to verify the information myself.

By the way CT Agent, You never responded to a question on had fro you from a previous article regarding Obama single-handedly destroying the country so here is your chance.

I will work under the assumption that you believe in the Constitution and that the Foundings Fathers were brilliant in how they created this great nation. Both of which I agree.
Please explain how they structured the Constitution in a way that would allow one incompetent person to destroy it all singlehandedly?
As you go into your “Obama is the most unconstitutional President ever” rant, answer this question: If that is the case, when can we expect the impeachment proceedings form the Republican controlled House of Represenatives? They have passed 30 plus bills attempting to repeal The Affordable Care Act with no hope of passing the Senate, why not impeachment?

What you just said: If a source you trust says something you will trust it no matter the info.

Good to know Ron.

I listen to any fact which has the correct methodology. Heritage Foundation has many articles with a much different methodology that you are used to. They are never incorrect. Neither are your sources. They weigh differntly. You need to look at how information is weighed, not who said it. We aren’t doing a he said she said type of political debate. It’s typical of younger debators, don’t go that route.

And I have not seen any facts on this site on this post showing that you know facts. I have seen you shoot out a comment about Hoover which was incorrect. To correct you, Hoover went into office DURING the start of a depression and then raised taxes. He didn’t end in one. To do with Bush, he went into office during a recession, and ended one recession before seeing a second. He technically also ended the second. The third was a global recession. It in fact was coincidental.

Herbert Hoover was President from January 20, 1929 to January 20,1933 and the Great Depression started October 24, 1929 (stock market crash) and didn’t end until the 1940s. Sounds like it happened under his watch.
So you are saying that 2 recessions started, one being global, during Bush’s Presidency. That makes me feel better.
These may be coincidences, but they are also correct facts.

My statement, Herbert Hoover came in at the beginning of a recession. Your statement: Hoover left the office with a recession. There is a difference. Given the start date, and given when laws kick in, Hoover could not have possibly started the depression.

Ron, actually three. 2001 a recession was already underway. This means Bush could not have started it. He did tax cuts, and we did better than other countries at the time.

2003 he cut taxes further, this was the second. By 2007 coroprate revenues for the government tripled. The dip again corrected itself.

in 2008 the global recession kicked in. This could not possibly be Bush’s fault. So I’m glad we are established that Bush Solved two recessions, and was in office for a third that couldn’t have been his fault.

Bob,
Was the Great Depression over when Hoover left office? As I said, I am not blaming him for it, but it started under his watch. If he is not to blame for the Great Depression or for not getting us out of it sooner, then we cannot blame Obama for a slow recovery. You cannot have it both ways.
I was only confirming that 2 recession BEGAN during Bush’s Presidency with the worst one still going when he left office. See above regarding blame.

December 5, 2012 at 5:18 pm

Bobsays:

Well-loved. Like or Dislike:

12

0

Ron:

YOU made the connection for beginnings of recessions at the end of presidencies. I merely showed you one of your two references were not correct.

Now for your next comment of I can’t have it both ways: You can’t call them the same scenario based on party and or person and not compare what someone actually did.

I’ve explained how Obama made this worse. You can’t negate it by saying “well look at Bush and other presidents”. I’m sorry, that’s not how it works.

I then explained how comparatively, Bush did better. He stopped two recessions, and tripled corporate revenues between 2003 and 2007. Obama had one recession, and he has not tripled revenues on anything. That’s only one measure, and an accurate one at that. You can’t claim it isn’t true.

Your premise was to blame republicans for the starting of recessions and your premise was false, and I would say down right dishonest.

Bob,
For someone so intelligent, your reading comprehension of my simple posts falls quite short.
When did I make the connection of recessions beginning at the end of Presidencies. What I was referencing was that the 2 largest financial collapses began and continued during the Presidencies of 2 businessman; Hoover and Bush. My premise was not to blame Republicans, but show that the government should not be run as a business.
I am trying to make the point that either side can spin who was to blame for recessions/depressions and who should get credit for recoveries. The economy has been cyclical since day one.
I believe that both parties deserve some blame when things go bad and credit when things are going well. They both have good and bad policies.

December 6, 2012 at 12:37 pm

Bobsays:

Like or Dislike:

3

0

Ron,

For someone who is so intelligent I fail to see how you are so blind in your democrat allegience that you can’t see how you just contradicted yourself.

“When did I make the connection of recessions beginning at the end of Presidencies.”. You are arguing semantics here. You connected two republicans to recessions. Your time period was they left office and there were recessions. Pick a tense to speak in Ron. If you’re going to change tense it’s you who isn’t very intelligent. If your measure is that they left with recessions in office, then that is the measure you are comparing. Hoover got in to the middle of a recession, a bad one. By your own logics, seeing as you said yourself Obama can’t fix it in 4, a depression which started 10 months into his presidency could not have been his fault, and being a deeper recession than Obama’s could not have been solved in 3 years and 2 months. Your ignorance here is astounding.

“What I was referencing was that the 2 largest financial collapses began and continued during the Presidencies of 2 businessman; Hoover and Bush. My premise was not to blame Republicans, but show that the government should not be run as a business.”

Oh right, you mean the two REPUBLICAN businessmen, and if you were making the argument that it was only their “businessmen” status which were at fault, the businessmen you referenced were not at fault to start with, I argue with complex terms, you took a blanket simple statement that has no meaning at all. It doesn’t matter if they left with a recession. At all. The measure is their actions and what affect it had/will have. Moreover, your measure of comparison was that they entered the office, and by the time they left there was a huge recession. I pointed out that Hoover entered the office, while one was starting. You implied that these businessmen had something to do with the recession.

Now, if you are trying to state they didn’t “fix” the measure, and that is being used to “blame” Hoover, well then, Obama did not “fix” the recession, and therefore it is YOU my friend who cannot have it both ways.

December 6, 2012 at 12:51 pm

Libbysays:

Like or Dislike:

2

3

Bob – Ron has been pretty clear, in this blog and in others, that he does not think any president should be credited for the good or blamed for the bad since there are so many other factors at play.

The whole businessman thing started when Sarge said Obama wasn’t qualified to be POTUS because he’d never run a business. Ron pointed out the 2 presidents with that background were involved in a recession. I don’t think he was implying anything about Rep v Dem. But I could be wrong.

I think you and Ron are miscommunicating, not disagreeing.

December 6, 2012 at 1:57 pm

Ronsays:

Like or Dislike:

1

3

Bob,
Please quote where I changed tense. This is my original point “We have had only 2 Presidents who have run businesses prior to being President, Herbert Hoover and George W Bush. Hoover’s Presidency ended with the Great Depression and Bush’s ended with the Great Recession. Coincidence? Maybe. But these are facts.”
I have since been corrected and acknowledged that I was wrong.
I forgot to mention Carter and we know how that Presidency ended.
Regarding laws, I agree with you that poorly constructed laws do have a negative impact on the economy. Can we agree that a President can only sign laws that are presented to him? Therefore, if Congress is not willing to pass laws to help the economy, there is nothing a President can do.
I did not, at any time, blame Hoover or Bush for leaving the economy in the financial messes they were. Please quote me where I did. I would never blame a President for that because they little direct influence. I am not looking to have it both ways, only pointing out that you want it both ways.

December 7, 2012 at 2:24 pm

Bobsays:

Like or Dislike:

1

0

Ron,

I have not made circumstance that contradicts. I have said that Obama has had a negative effect on this recession and I have provided evidence. I stated the Bush did not cause the recession and provided evidence. Explain where I contradicted myself. I don’t ever make an argument without very specific facts. Point out how they contradicted.

You just told me a vague layout of concept which is basically “presidents can’t pass something that the congress doesn’t offer” You’re saying that Obama couldn’t pass the correct laws to fix the recession because of(congress) republicans. I call B.S. on that one. Obama passed a healthcare bill, a stimulus bill, and Bush passed a bailout program. That’s not contradictory, that is weighing presidents by their actions. Obama received every plan he wanted, and he’s about to get the marginal rates he wants as well. He also got what he wanted with the QE, with Twist, with Keystone Oil, and you believe that had no effect on jobs? The only thing he didn’t get was a second stimulus. All of those have a weighed effect, QE exploded the cost of food and gas. That would not have happened otherwise. Point out how my blaming Obama contradicts anything, and how it ties in with Bush to begin with.

You want it both ways to say that Obama “tried” to fix the economy and are willing to give credit where it had no effect, while you have not said the same of Hoover. You have labled me and side stepped your actual opinions, but you have made your opinions very clear. You want to believe that both scenarios are equal in the case of Bush and Obama for blame, and you want to give Obama more credit than either Hoover or Bush, without weighing laws passed, and ideals blocked (in Bush’s case his idea to change housing laws). They aren’t equal. We know what was blocked with Bush. We know what effect it would have had. We know what Obama got. We know what he tried to get. It’s public. If you pay attention and Obama actually had any intention of putting it through, you would know it existed. You just implied we would have no way of knowing what the president wanted that didn’t get through. In that area, you are dead wrong. It’s called paying attention to major issues. Perhaps you should try it.

December 5, 2012 at 3:27 pm

CT Agentsays:

Well-loved. Like or Dislike:

13

3

And, can someone please tell me why we, the taxpayers, have to pay for an inauguration ball? The man has been ruining our country for the past four years and now has 4 more. There is no transition period here, so why do we have to pick up this ridiculous tab??

Becasue we paid for Reagan’s, Bush’s, and would have paid for Romney’s 2nd Inauguration had he been elected then re-elected. Stop making it seem like Obama is so much different that nearly every President before and after him.

Please provide some metrics to support your claims. Divisiveness goes both ways. Remeber Sen. McConnell stating that their number 1 goal is to make Obama a one-term President. I guess that could not possibly lead to diviseness from the Republicans.

He lives in Chicago. He cut his teeth in Crook County under Blago -a convicted felon. He had dealings with Rezco & Levine both convicted felons. He hid behind Executive Privilage when came time for him to chat with the prosecutor about his conversations with blago. He hid Rahm in the same manner. He is hiding something. That makes him the worst possible canidate. Your a better option. Your Teen Age kid is a better option.

Thats one right off the top of my head.

December 5, 2012 at 4:46 pm

Sargent Majorsays:

Well-loved. Like or Dislike:

17

1

Ron said- “We have had only 2 Presidents who have run businesses prior to being President, Herbert Hoover and George W Bush.”

You have got to be joking? You ask me for reference sources and you come up with that? How about this;

* Lyndon Johnson- teacher, Rancher,
* Dwight D Eisenhower- Professional Soldier, Supreme Allied Commander in WWII. He was also President of Columbia University
* Harry S. Truman- Owner a men’s clothing store and was a farmer.
* Hoover, you mentioned
* Calvin Coolidge- Bank Vice President and a lawyer

OK Ron, there is nine ex-presidents who have run businesses. Would you like a few more? You give no verifiable facts and ask others for sources- Wow, you sound just like a liberal who don’t want to work for the facts. You can look this up yourself.

Obama was not and is not qualified to be President, has not run a business and is not qualified to run a lemonade stand.

I stand corrected. However, I amm not sure I would include Reagan, Eisenhower or Coolidge. Business experience, even as an executive, is not the same as running a business.
Nice to see that Carter make the list. The economy was soooo much better when he left office.
Yes, I am better at math than history, but you need to provide some numbers to test me.

Well Libby The Screen Actors Guild during Reagon’s presidency was a union representing over 100,000 actors and entertainers. That is a business. They have revenue (Dues), expenses, goals and objectives and customers Union members and in this case Movie studios). So you must alos believe that all union presidents and officers don’t run a business ?

I assume when you say teacher you also mean Johnson (Democrat. Well johnson was not a great president but I would say that between teaching and a ranch (which I believe quailfies for a business unless you are in a communist country) He qualifies as a businessman,
Lastly, Using your logic that a bank VP is just a job, then why do unions and non union workers blame the officers of the company who “run the business” for any failings? Why don’t they just step up and admit it was them who screwed up the pension plan or walked off the job and put the company in bankruptcy (Hostess)?

Sarge, I realize you will argue with me about whether the sky is blue or not, but seriously. A teacher is the same as a businessman? A bank VP? There are more bank VP’s than there are tellers! And no, a union is not the same as a business. There is no competition, there is no profit that needs to be made, no payroll to be met, no taxes to consider. I could go on, but I think I’ve made my point.

Where are the metrics? Give me 5 verifiable economic statistics, and cite your source, and how they diminshed during Obama’s term and I am extremely confident I can find an economy overeen by another President when they were worse. I am not saying Obama is great or even very good, but to say he is the worst President without evidence outside of rhetoric is disingenuous at best. I will also not blame the other President during those worse economic times for that either.

Bob;
You are absolutely correct. Hoover went into the Presidency and was handed the depression and was blamed for it then voted out. So he got tossed out and Obama was relected by using “It was not my fault, blame George Bush” and got relected. To bad we did not have the same voting republic this time around.

Therefore he could not have possibly caused it. He was handed a depression. What laws did Hoover pass that lead to the credit bubble bursting?

How could he possibly have started the depression? Which law Ron? Which one?

I’ve linked how our credit collapse happened over 50 times, and I shouldn’t have to re explain it to you and your supposed “facts”

Your version of facts:

FACT GEORGE W BUSH WAS PRESIDENT DURING THE WORST RECESSION EVER!! (so was Obama)
Fact!!! THE GREAT DEPRESSION BEGAN 10 MONTHS AFTER HOOVER TOOK OFFICE!!! (which means what exactly? That’s not methodlogy of any sort, that’s the correlation and causation argument. Please quote one act that was passed under Hoover, or George W regarding the housing market for that matter, and then please quote which de regulation directly contributed to the collapse, otherwise, shut it, I’m tired of talking you people through this).

FACT: No one had a reason to vote for Romney!!! (as I listed a whole slew of specifcs).

Name me 1 law that any President has passed in the history of this country? He only signs the laws that have been passed by Congress. I can’t believe I am giving you a lesson on the Constitution.
I am not debating about who is to blame for anything. I am just pointing out that our country has gone through very difficult economic times in the past under different administrations.
I did not just point out that Bush was President during the worst recession ever, but was the President at the beginning of it and had been for 7 years. Once again, I do not think he is to blame nor do I think Hoover is to blame for the Great Depression, nor Obama for the slow recovery. See my response to Sargent’s post about double standards.
I will give you credit for providing some basis for your voting for Romney. Too bad he and Ryan couldn’t sell it to the people. Most of the people I work with and my friends were looking for a better option than Obama, but we got Romney. If Huntsman was given the nod, we would not have to talk about Obama any more after January 20. I would have voted for him and I firmly believe he would have won by close to 10 points.

I am well aware of how laws are passed. I am well aware of how they go through. If you knew the process you would be able to quote laws, who blocked them, and which president refused to let them go through or pushed for them. If you are arguing a president has no effect that is the dumbest argument I have ever heard. If Obama was not president, we would not have Obama Care. That’s just a fact. But more importantly: I don’t care if it is president or otherwise, LIST ME A LAW THAT EFFECTS THE ECONOMY AND LED TO THESE RECESSIONS. You don’t know how they started, and you’re voting for talking points. You just admitted you don’t know Romney’s agenda. You don’t know which laws led to the recession, and that you believe all presidents have the same effect. That’s pure bull. The CRA act of 1977 would not exist without Carter. The push to expand loan commitments to 4.53 trillion from 8 billion would not have existed without Clinton in 1992, and would not exist without the Citibank lawsuit of around the same time which Obama was a part of.

The regulatory reforms of 2003, and 2005 are two that Bush worked hard to get through, along with republicans. It would have regulated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as changed the tone of how loans are done. If you want the bill titles I will gladly give them to you.

December 7, 2012 at 9:16 am

Libbysays:

Like or Dislike:

1

2

Bob, if Obama were not President we would have Romneycare. Oh! That’s right. We already do. And they are almost identical.

December 7, 2012 at 2:31 pm

Bobsays:

Like or Dislike:

1

1

Libby:

No. We would not. The fact that you don’t undertand what supporting a federal and state law means is ridiculous.

Romney would not have passed Romney care. He passed it in a state to see how it worked. That’s basically a test in one state. And his state for premiums sky rocketed, and the amount of people who shifted to medicare from medicare advantage went insane.

Romney admitted it was wrong. Like a good politician. As he said, if I’m the grandfather of Romney care, I can kill it.

He’s no longer the head of that state. We saw the results. Quit arguing for a point, and start arguing for what’s best.

Obama changed his mind about gay rights (supposedly) and that was ok with you.

Romney in a good show put in place a very good attempt of a bill to get healthcare revised, in a bipartisan way, and you are damning him for it? While at the same time you said he wouldn’t work well for the country? He makes bipartisan efforts, and tries new things. That’s a GOOD thing. And he admits when things don’t work. And he tries thing state wise before trying to screw up the whole federal system. All positives. Now please retire the ridiculous Romneycare justifies Obamacare argument.

December 7, 2012 at 2:46 pm

Libbysays:

Like or Dislike:

2

1

I recall Romney calling it a rousing success. Until he ran for President and had to change his tune. Please don’t try to defend Romney. He talked out of both sides of his mouth, flip-flopped more than a dying fish, and could not present a coherent, complete plan about any of his ideas. If the Reps. candidate had been better chosen, we have had a switch in the White House. He insulted 47% of Americans and people don’t vote for people they don’t like and think don’t like them. That was a huge mistake for them.

Where/how did Obama change his position on gay rights?

December 7, 2012 at 3:42 pm

Bobsays:

Like or Dislike:

0

1

Libby:

And Obama was against gay rights until he announced near the end of his presidency that at darn near 50, he had an awakening, an epiphany of change on the matter.

Now moving to Romney and how it’s related and why Romney is more believable: He actually quoted the effects of his own plan, and it has been bad. The medicare advantage to medicare was one of his top reasons behind turning against his own bill. You look at it as flip flopping, but then you would certainly have called him a “one track” president if he didn’t analyze the effect of his plans.

This is better than defending a broken policy due to public opinion, which I am sure you believe Bush did. You can’t state he flip flops when he is flexible, and then claim they are not flexible when they don’t flip flop.

It’s not consistent.

December 7, 2012 at 3:47 pm

Libbysays:

Like or Dislike:

1

0

No, I would not call what he did about Romneycare flip-flopping. I would respect anyone that changes course once they realize things aren’t working.

He flip-flopped on fundamental issues, some very indocrinated in his faith. He was pro-choice in MA, but now he’s not. He was pro-gay rights in MA, but now he’s not. Those aren’t things you just change your mind about.

I’ll have to look at Obama’s record on gay rights before I comment about that. If he indeed to that, I will call him on it. I’m not blinded when it comes to Obama, I just really didn’t like Romney. Another more middle-of-the-road candidate might have gotten my vote.

December 7, 2012 at 3:57 pm

Bobsays:

Like or Dislike:

0

0

Libby,

We weren’t talking about those Romney issues though, you brought up Romney Care. We were talking about healthcare.

And the reason I brought up Obama’s point, was he flip flopped on gay rights (marriage). Though I must be fair here: I actually don’t care if he did. I only bring it up because you seem to care about supposed “flip flops” on civil rights issues, or rather what you perceive to be a civil rights issue.

I’ve already made it evident that for marriage to be accepted into existence for gays what I want is for the elimination of the definition being government determined, and/or for it to simply be a civil union. The latter of the two I only want to avoid churches being forced to do anything, and for gays to be allowed to be together, without any possibility of infringment of religious rights. Can you honestly tell me the democrat proposals have been completely out of the realm of infringing on religious rights? It doesn’t make it ok to do something just because you feel wronged to another person which was done to you. Personally I don’t think that the government should have a definition for marriage at all. The reason I am against the definition in the government is to be a secular nation and so we don’t force churches to do anything. You believe republicans are against it because they hate gays. This is simply not true for the vast majority of republican leaders.

December 6, 2012 at 7:40 am

Ronsays:

Like or Dislike:

3

8

Sargeant,
This is a perfect example of a double standard. You are complaining that we should have re-elected Hoover even though he did not fix the economic mess he was handed, but we should not re-elect Obama because he did not fix the economic mess he was handed.
Pick a side and stick with it. No wonder you were for Romney.

You are right Ron it is a double standard. Hoover was booted out of office after being handed a depression he was not responsible for and Obozo was reelected for a recession that he was supposed to have “inherited”. Reelected even though he kept no promises, run up the nations debt and pushed blame off to everyone but himself. That is after he said- If I can’t make progress during my first term I should not be elected to a second. Being incompetent and a liar does not qualify him to be President let alone his lack of any real experience.

It’s statements like that that get my hackles up. Say he didn’t keep many of the promises or that he kept very little of his promises. But you can not say “he kept NO promises.” That kind of statement is indefensible.

Libby, it should get your hackles up. He did not keep the promises he made and I don’t count bad healthcare legislation that was passed by a democratic congress at 3:00am without time to read it or ask questions and rammed down the throats of American citizens.

He has done nothing to make this country great. He has done nothing but make it weaker, less competitive in world markets pushing the country toward bankrupty.

December 6, 2012 at 10:40 am

Ronsays:

Like or Dislike:

2

7

I agree, he should not have been re-elected. He did not lie. It is the majority of American voters that decided he should be re-elected. The problem is that the Republicans could not present a better candidate and/or sell him as such. Remember, Romney said he should not be qualified to be President because he paid more in taxes in 2011 than he was required to by law by reporting less than 100% of his charitable contributions. That was done so he can continue to say that he never paid less than a 13% effective tax rate.
If Obama did not inherit the recession, when did it start?

Ron, come on. A potted plant would have been a better candidate than Obama.

December 6, 2012 at 12:35 pm

Ronsays:

Like or Dislike:

3

5

So you are saying that Romney is not even as good as a potted plant? He was the candidate that could not beat Obama.

December 5, 2012 at 10:33 pm

Sargent Majorsays:

Well-loved. Like or Dislike:

14

2

Ron said- “I stand corrected. However, I amm not sure I would include Reagan, Eisenhower or Coolidge. Business experience, even as an executive, is not the same as running a business.”

Is this joke number 2? That statement makes absolutely no sense. What do you think an executive does? They run the business along with all the executive staff. When things go well, unions and minions demand more more money and benefits or they want to strike. When times are not as good, they blame the executives for mismanagement when, most likely it was the union, government intervention and regulations, tax complications that forced the company to make decisions that they would not have made otherwise. Your a real comedian.
By the way Reagon, Eisenhower and Coolidge were business men and leaders. They were not a community organizer with absolutely no business experience.

Ron said- “Nice to see that Carter make the list. The economy was soooo much better when he left office.”

Joke number 3

Carter was a T*rd.

*When he left office interest rates were 18 to 20%.

*Carter created a recession which hit in 1978.

* He ended his term with an unemployment rate of about 7.3 maybe 7.5%

*Iran attacked our embassy and took control of it on November 4 1979 and held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days while Carter wanted to talk/negotiate.
Finally Carter approved operation “Eagle Claw” which was a failed rescue mission mostly due to poor equipment failures that came about because of defense cuts. he was responsible for the weakest armed services in modern US history.

The hostages were released January 20, 1981, minutes after Ronald Reagon was sworn in. Libs say it was the Algiers acord but most old soldiers would say that Iran sh*t it pants when Reagon was elected.

Sargent,
Do you understand sarcasm? Guess not. I know how bad the economy was when he left, kinda like after Hoover and Bush.
I am sure it was also a coincidence the the Iran-Contra scandal took place during Reagan’s term after the hostages were released. I know it’s a little on the conspiracy theory side, but interesting none-the-less.

Carter was the second worst president in modern history. Obama has to be the worst and should go down as so and Clinton was the third worst given his impeachment, the fact that he only lied when his lips moved, the women he kept under his desk “I never had sex with that women- Ms. Lewinski” and the fact that he balanced his budget on the back of Social Security IOU’s

You can look it up your self. This is pretty common knowledge. Look it up yourself and if you don’t know how to do that check with the cubemate next to you.

December 6, 2012 at 2:09 pm

Libbysays:

Like or Dislike:

1

5

There are no “facts” Sarge. It’s only your opinion. Which is fine, but don’t disparage Ron for making one when you make yours known all the time. “Mexican Village” ring a bell?

December 6, 2012 at 3:16 pm

Ronsays:

Like or Dislike:

2

5

Sarge,
That is the classic “I don’t have anything, so I will make the other person do the work looking for something that does not exist” move. How can I look up something that I stated does not exist?
You are the one who said Obama is the worst, Carter was the 2nd worst and Clinton was the 3rd worst President in our history. Based on what verifiable metrics?

December 6, 2012 at 11:03 am

Libbysays:

Like or Dislike:

0

8

An aggregate survey done by USPC, Siena, C-SPAN, Times, & the WSJ rank the top 10 worst presidents as follows:

Libby, what is this? It is one poll among many with many different “Metrics” I could list several other polls including Gallop, Sienna etc over a number of years and give you different results. Just look at the gallop 2012 poll which shouws Obama’s ranking and he isn’t even out of office. Send your “metrics” to Mr hip shoot Ron

Again with the attacks, Sarge? I am sure I said there was no point being made, just some trivia. I did look at some other surveys, but they were only from one source and looked incredibly similar to this one.

Whom ever says they are going to kick OBama Care gets my vote so long as they dont come out of IL.
All these history lessons – why? Cant change the past. Our future has changed. Due to OBama Care, companies will fold, people will lose their jobs, hours will be cut. People will be getting two Part Time jobs to pay taxxes (so our govt dont have to be on OBama care) and feed themselves/their kids, quality of life will fall, suicides will increase, shelters will become the norm.
That is what the majority of Americans voted for, that is our future.

Even though we do not agree, I truly respect your point of view and enjoy debating with you. Please understand that I am only defending Obama to the point that I do not believe he is that much different than any other President. He has made some mistakes, not kept all of his promises, and has not been as transparent in all of his dealings. But which President does not meet these criteria?
I wanted to show this by comparing Obama’s handling of the poor economy he inheritied and has not made better fast enough for you to Hoover’s handling of the Great Depression and Bush’s handling of the Great Recession. My point for bringing this up is that any President has very little direct impact on these things. They are not dictators and must conform to the structure of the Government. I am sure Hoover and Bush put forth their best efforts to divert the financial collapses and/or improve the economy during their presidencies, but economy failed anyway and I do NOT blame either.
There is no room in public discourse for rudeness, condescension, or insults to those with a different point of view.
We can agree to disagree and live our lives, raise our families and enjoy life to the fullest.

Point taken. That honesty Comment got me going to the point, when I did go home last night, my wife stayed clear.
Sorry if my comments were “rudeness, condescension, or insults to those with a different point of view”.

I think we are all frustrated with the lack of honesty in politics and I understand your particular concerns with IL politicians due to the past there. Just realize, those things do happen elsewhere and in both parties.
My frustration comes from comments saying Obama is single-handedly destroying this country with any quantifiable evidence. It is all rhetoric. I would not say he has been one of the best Presidents, but I believe is far from the worst based on the fact that we have net job gains since he took office, the stock markets have improved, increasing housing prices and new home construction, increasing consumer confidence, and improved manufacturing. I am not saying he deserves the credit for these things, and they may have occurred in spite of his policies, but they are true.

Not just the past, but the present. His refusal to testify in the Blago case really begs the question – What is he hiding.
His dealing with Federally Convicted Felons – Brids of a feather – what is he hiding? What is Rahm hiding. We know he is dodging his fair share of the property taxxes – thats public record. He is part of the problem in his own state.

Chicago politics in the White House – God help us all!

I am not impressed with Rahm Obamas former right hand man – Murder rate up 50% since he took over.

Always, I know your there. You cant be too please with whats happening down there either. If he can get the city out of this parking meter thing, he may redeem himself. But that murder rate has got to improve.

Once again FFA, how has any of that influenced his Presidency? I really do not care about Chicago politics especially Blago and Emmanuel.
What I want is hard evidence that Obama has done something illegal and or unethical beyond any other President. Not associations or dealings with shady people.
Does Obama still associate with these people? Did he appoint them in positions with his administration?

December 7, 2012 at 5:13 pm

FFAsays:

Like or Dislike:

1

0

What is he hiding Ron? We know that he is not paying his fair share of property taxxes. He used Rezco to accomplish that.

Why did he hide behind executive privilage?

He is hiding something. Evidence Blago was just a loud mouth Jack A#@?

Maybe JR will crack and spell out OBama role. But then agaoin, it has been proven he is a crook, so who could believe him anyways?

Right now, all I can tell your for a fact is that he is not paying his fair share of property taxxes. Cook County Tax Site will bring you to that. County raising my property taxxes while he enjoys Vacant Lot rates on his much more valuable house, in my eyes is unethical.

December 7, 2012 at 5:22 pm

FFAsays:

Like or Dislike:

1

0

BTW Ron, Michael Jordan was suspended from the NBA for playing Golf with an alleged mobster. They did not want to tarnish his image, so Reinsdorf let him play AA B Ball.

On an unrelated note, I one met a waitress that waited on Scottie Pippen in one of the Clubs. They called him No Tippin Pippen.

December 7, 2012 at 8:22 pm

Ronsays:

Like or Dislike:

0

1

FFA,
When did I ask, “what is he hiding?” I assume that all politicians are hiding something. That is why Romney wouldn’t release his tax returns. Maybe he wasn’t paying his fair share either.
His not paying his fair share in proprty taxes is between him and Cook County. Besides, don’t those crooks in Chicago politics have enough money?

December 8, 2012 at 1:30 pm

FFAsays:

Like or Dislike:

0

0

Ron, Its like the cheating spouse. If you see your spouse hanging with other people known to cheat on their spouse, chances are pretty strong your spouse is cheating too. So, you get the proof, you divorce your spouse and move on. Your next relationship will be problematic as trust will be an issue because of your past experience.
I realize he has not been accused of (officially) any wrong doing. It is a fact that he is not paying his share of property taxxes. It is just a matter of time before someone wants to save their own skin and turn Rat on him. Wish I were a fly on the wall when JR is chatting with the prosecution. Rezco, Levine & Blago all have got to be getting tired of their living arrangements. My guess it would be Blago that turns rat as he is away for the longest.

My trust level in Il Policiticans that have know contact and dealings with convicted felons is zero. Those that contribute to the financial problems in this state dips into negative numbers. when someone says trust me (Joe Biden) I dont. Strong indication they are hiding something.
And now, this crap is filtering down to my local city hall with the mayor.

Until he starts paying his fair share of property taxxes in IL, well you know, he is just another IL politician from Cook County in my eyes.

December 8, 2012 at 3:01 pm

Ronsays:

Like or Dislike:

0

0

FFA,
When you get the proof, then come talk to me. Last I checked, this country was built on innocent until proven guilty. You know, the Constitution and all.
I actually feel sorry for you that you have such trust issues. How do even get out of bed every day?
It is not who people associate with, it is their actions that matter, period.
I believe it is my responsibility to not give my wife a reason to cheat regardless of who she hangs out with.

December 10, 2012 at 10:46 am

FFAsays:

Like or Dislike:

0

0

Ron, I am happily married. I have never cheated nor has my wife. Her First Hubby was a low life cheat. He is the top 10% in the entire country as far as dead beat dads go – ore the $500K. No one in Springfield would help. No one in the county – no one in the local Muni. Nobody.

How do I get up every morning? Obligations to my self & my family. I do not want to be a leach on society. Refuse to lose.

There are better options out there then IL and they are being explored. I just cant stand the dishonesty. I dont like not being trusting. It has created an inner conflict I am having issues dealing with. I did not sign up for this. And this late ion the game for me – changing the rules has made me angry. 2011 trend continued, I would be retired at 60. Govt intrusion into private business comes around, looking like I am working till 70. oBama nor Quinn had any business sticking their nose into the insurance industry. Neithe of them have any idea what they are doing.
Blame the insurance companies and do nothng about Tort. Every one in the world knows that if you want to reign in costs, you must address the factors that drive it. Had he adderessed the factors, he might be on to something.

In Libby link, I did the math. Based on last years trend, they will pay out more in one month they I pay them in a year. How is that going to work??????

December 10, 2012 at 10:51 am

Libbysays:

Like or Dislike:

0

0

Come on, FFA. You know how that will work. It’s the entire premise of insurance. The law of large numbers. They pay you more than you pay them, but they pay others less than they pay in. That’s how insurance works.

December 10, 2012 at 11:31 am

FFAsays:

Like or Dislike:

0

0

Libby, you had stated the problem with the therory in a different forum.
People wont buy it until they need it. Then they will just drop it after they are in their feet.
The system as it is set up makes it too easy to pick up coverage after you figure out you need it.

December 10, 2012 at 11:33 am

Libbysays:

Like or Dislike:

0

0

If they don’t buy it, they will have to pay the tax. That will apply in lieu of premium.

December 10, 2012 at 1:41 pm

FFAsays:

Like or Dislike:

0

0

My fear – not enough tax money to cover things. In my building alone – everyone that pays into UnEmployment can not cover the cost of what is going out of my office alone.

Not enough people working to cover the cost. How do they intend on getting it out of the unemployed? The Under Employed?
They have to pay the tax before they buy food/clothes/shelter?

Another issue just came up to me today. My one producer is up for another job outside the insurance industry. If he leaves, what the heck am I going to do for insurance for me & the wife?

You should look up the effect of lowering taxes and spending in the case of over 200 recessions worldwide. Presidents do effect recoveries. Cutting and spending less has resulted in dramatically shorter recessions.

Other than that I will agree we can disagree. But I do think if you’re going to be active in this political world, you should at least know the laws presidents support, rather than making vague statements about presidents not having any effect without having first researched their effect, attemps of bills, bills passed, etc.

Even though I get pissed due to the frustration of politics, out of anyone here I respect you the most.

You are the best versed. And I know it was a compliment. We’ve been much better with each other as of late, and I loved your business tax comment. Right on point.

December 7, 2012 at 2:58 pm

Ronsays:

Like or Dislike:

0

1

Bob,
I do not want to get back into this, but I feel I need to clarify my point.
I do agree that taxes and spending impact the economy. My point has been that the President, reagrdless of party affiliation, cannot autonomously change those things. He needs Congress to present tax law changes for his signature and they also control spending.
Presidents are not CEOs or dictators, they can only try to influence changes in the laws and spending.

I feel I must point out that the tax code change to simply reverting the Bush marginal rates and keeping his lower marginal rates is an Obama forced ideal.

It would not happen otherwise. Therefore the premise for presidents not effeting things is moot. If Bush were not president we wouldn’t have had the Bush tax cuts. Without FDR we would not have had social security. It is what it is.

You can’t make the agrument that presidents have a minimal effect. They have a huge one.

I’m not making the point about where tax rates are at right now, merely that presidents have a huge effect on those rates.

Though our taxes are low our rates are not. This sets up an environment where in order to have the low rate you must be a type of firm, or have a type of revenues (green energy rates being half that of oil, businesses who have expenditures have more write offs than a start up firm, who will get hit with the full marginal rate, etc)

The reason behind a lower marginal rate is so that people who have no means to deductions, also known as start up firms, aren’t hit with a full marginal rate (as they have no deductions)

Then you remove all deductions to hit the guys you want to pay taxes, with the tax amount you want. Higher marginal rates are bad. Lower with no loopholes for expenditures are the best for getting revenues where you want them from and not the little guy.

December 7, 2012 at 8:09 pm

Ronsays:

Like or Dislike:

0

1

As I said, they have some influence, but they do not have the only say. If that were the case, the 2 top marginal rates would have expired last year when that was what Obama wanted. However, Congress would not present a bill to only extend the rates for those making less trhan $200k or families making $250k. So he had to sign the extension for all rates because that was what was best for the country, and his re-election.
Considering the Bush tax cuts were signed during 2 major military actions, an argument could be made that that has directly lead to our current debt situation. Therefore, maybe not such a good idea.

December 10, 2012 at 12:24 pm

Bobsays:

Like or Dislike:

0

0

Ron,

Obama made a deal to extend the tax cuts. They were set to expire. By that measure, Obama was entirely responsible for the temporary marginal tax rates being extended.

Congress did refuse to pass one of his bills without it. However worth noting is that Obama did not fight on it for a reason. His own man Bernanke told Obama not to change the rates.

If Obama wanted to fight on it he would have. So in order to be fair, I also give Obama credit for extending the rates for a few years. However, you can’t state that was due to congress. All Obama had to do was let them expire. He didn’t.

December 10, 2012 at 1:44 pm

Ronsays:

Like or Dislike:

0

0

Bob,
Please answer this simple yes/no question; Outside of allowing temporary laws to expire by not signing an extension presented by Congress, can a president change tax laws without a bill passed by Congress?
That has been my point this whole time. As I previously stated, I agree with you regarding presidential influence, but it is not a dictatorship.

December 10, 2012 at 1:55 pm

Bobsays:

Like or Dislike:

0

0

Ron,

Your question is completely dishonest, over simplified, and avoids who is at fault.

It’s an irrelavent question.

Answer this question: How were the marginal tax rates passed to be continued? If it was a part of another deal, who was the person in charge of that deal?

Did Obama or did Obama not hire Bernanke as part of his staff? Did Bernanke or did Bernanke not tell obama to pass the extension of the expiring tax cuts?

In most cases tax cuts are not temporary.

Who put forth the current tax plan with higher marginal rates?

Who put forth the tax plan with the top 36.9% rate?

More importantly: Would the Clinton rates have passed without Clinton? NO.

Would the Bush tax rates have passed without Bush? NO.

Would the extension of the Bush tax rates have passed without Obama and Bernanke? NO.

Would this marginal tax rate increase happen which Obama is pushing for without Obama? NO.

You are trying to shift blame from any president for their marginal rates. Presidents are the largest determining factor for marginal rates. NO ONE back in the day would have thought of or agreed with Reagan when it came to cutting rates in less than half.

When you have a full and complete idea of how rates are passed, and who is to blame, then come back.

You can’t continue to admit you aren’t well versed in laws and how they are passed, and then claim that you believe presidents have no effect. Look into how it is processed, and then make that comment.

You are wrong. We started this with me stating without Obama we would not have the marginal tax rate increases coming or the capital gains tax rate increases, and the congresses ideas for lowering marginal rates and removing loopholes would go through. While you have side stepped that (through dishonest debating tactics) the point still stands. Obamacare would not have raised taxes further without Obama.

Presidents have everything to do with tax rates, in fact, I would go so far as to state they are nearly 90% of the determining factor when you look into real world scenarios as opposed to a dumb ass method of “well, congress votes on that, not the president so it isn’t the president, even if it’s part of his proposal”. That’s garbage.

December 10, 2012 at 2:21 pm

Ronsays:

Like or Dislike:

0

0

Bob,
Do you always have to prove how smart you are? You could not answer a simple question regarding how our Government works. It may seem like a simple question, but the right answer discredits your argument against mine that the president can make autonomous changes to the tax law. I was not looking to fault anyone.
I have repeatedly agreed with you regarding presidential influence and at no time did I blame anyone for anything. I am just trying to make the point that presidents are always judged based on the economy, but are restricted in what they can and cannot do based on the Constitution, period. If there is something in the Constitution that says the president can change tax laws/rates without a bill passed by Congress, please let me know.
Actually, this started because I pointed out the state of the economy during the presidencies of 2 businessmen. If I indicated that they were to blame, please quote me.
I will NEVER blame or give credit to one person for the state of the economy. It does not work that way in this country.

December 13, 2012 at 12:55 pm

Bobsays:

Like or Dislike:

0

0

Ron,

No, it doesn’t disprove how laws are passed and who caused it.

You are trying to state that one president can’t pass a law. That is true. But then you are trying to apply that phrase to state that “Obama” is not responsible for the stimulus which failed, the marginal tax rates that went through, or tangible affects that came from those actions.

I’m sorry Ron, you’re taking a dishonest debating tactic because in reality you are smart, and you know how to use a structure in an attempt to win a debate and make a point.

However you are wrong. That’s all that matters. One person cannot be the final dictator. That is a blanket somewhat true comment. But then you don’t actually state the effects, or laws.

You can’t make a blanket comment to apply to all presidents. That’s not how it works.

Obama passed QE. QE resulted in rising gas costs, food costs, and did not raise the cost of houses which it was supposed to do (according to Obama) but moreover WHY RAISE THE HOUSING COSTS DURING A RECESSION!!??

QE is a direct factor blocking our recovery, and will lead to hyper inflation, that WILL be Obama’s fault.

Obama sued citibank in the 90’s. Before 1992 the CRA ratings were not triggered, as such only 8 billion in loans were given between their inception (from Jimmy Carter’s inception 1977 law) to 4.53 trillion between 1992 and 2007. That’s an explosion of over 1000 percent. And you say that Carter had no effect on the economy? Obama triggering the laws in 1992 had no effect on the economy? Clinton forcing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to give out low credit loans had no effect on the economy?

Your problem is in finding which triggers cause outstanding huge crashes. You say “no one man can do that”. In some cases, that’s true. In others, it’s not.

I will reiterate:

Presidents have huge impacts on the economy, mainly because when we report about battles, we report on what the president wants, and who is blocking that want, ever heard the phrase “party of no”. Why do you think it exists? For the president of either party to get what they want. And as I said above, Obama has received nearly everything he wanted. And those items will effect, and have effected the economy. And thos items have, and will, be the largest effecting issues of the economy. If there is a larger effect, then as I said before NAME THE LAW. You can’t do it? Then shut the hell up. You can’t state how these are passed in the real world? Then shut the hell up. I’m bluntly tired of your dishonest debating tactics on here, and your blunt ignorance in how things come to be.

You can state they were not responsible. Give me a president, and I will give you everything they passed that is indefinintely to their credit. And then I will explain how it effected the economy.

But I’ll tell you what I’ll NEVER do. I’ll never make such blanket comments as you, and then try to back it up with a comment such as “oh, you can’t whether or not the president can pass a law on his own or write a law on his own? HAH! You must be wrong it can’t be him!”. That’s dumb Ron and you know it. Obama passed Obamacare. It will have a huge effect whether positive or negative. And for you to state the Stimulus, QE 1 2 and now 3, Twist, Obamacare, the passing of the wall street regulation (terrible regulation at that) was not his own, and will have no effect on the economy that is substantial is astoundingly incorrect. It would not have been passed without him and it WILL have an effect. A huge one.

December 18, 2012 at 1:03 pm

DoktorThomas™says:

Like or Dislike:

0

0

Th biggest part of the cliff is the debit abyss at the bottom of the fall.
There’s not a tax problem, at least not beyond the fact there are too many taxes. Washington has a spending problem; that has to be dramatically reeled in (cut by more then 50%). All spending that doesn’t directly benefit the nation or its citizens (not corporations) needs to be stopped immediately.
Few know the tax revolt that spawned the nation was based on an oppressive rate of 5%!! Less then most sales taxes.
Most federal programs are worthless and only benefit insiders and politicians. Stop the spending. Get the federal government out of everything.